Why The Left Runs To The "Center"?

Here's an insightful post that builds on Greenwald's latest and asks why Weakness is Strength for Dems. The answer is intriguing, although I'm not sure I buy the entire premise; I guess I have a hard time believing that today's media stars are that influential with voters, but then again for the premise to work, they only need to be influential to candidates and their advisers. The concept of "moving to the center" is summed up nicely with this line:

The entire construct is based upon Democrats distancing themselves from their most ardent supporters (which is quite convenient for Republicans.)

The Problem with Democrats

[Note that the post is the problem, singular, not problems; I don't have all day!]

Over the past...30 years (?), it seems to me that Republicans have been very successful in moving the accepted political spectrum farther and farther right - what was Right is now Center, Far Right is now just Right, Left is now Far Left, you get the picture. Don't ask me why that is, or how it came to happen, but I think there's ample evidence. Even in Clinton's eight years in office, this process was going on; look at welfare reform and the SEC during that time, as a few examples.

Democrats have been in charge on Congress for a few years, and stand in opposition one of the most unpopular presidents in history. But are they actually in opposition? Not really. Even the party's presidential nominee has fallen into an all-too-familiar Democratic trap: the fear of appearing weak on national security, which of course leads to actually becoming weak in defense of one's principles. Congressional Democrats, as a block, only allow themselves token, symbolic opposition to Bush policies; Glenn Greenwald is calling this The New Republic Syndrome. I'm glad our congressman, John Sarbanes, voted against the latest bipartisan disaster, and plenty of other Democrats did as well. But what to do when the House "leaders" are in opposition to the majority of their own party? Either try to change their minds, or remove them from these leadership positions. Too bad it's so difficult (read: expensive) to run against an incumbent. It's a sad time for Democrats when both Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer can't be relied on to protect the Constitution. At least the sprinkler system at the National Archives is still on the job (I hope!).

The merits of the FISA bill or other Bush administration positions can be argued, I suppose - you won't read me defending them, but one could make a go of it, I guess. But without any meaningful opposition, no substantive defense of those positions is even required; proponents can throw the flag around this bill (or a potential war with Iran, or a morally and intellectually bankrupt energy policy), question the patriotism of those in genuine opposition without addressing their real concerns, and be home in time for the summer recess.

Of Beer and Hostile Takeovers

If the Belgian-Brazilian brewer InBev wants to buy Budweiser - that's their problem. As for any patriotic defenses of the American-brewed "king of beers"? Andrew Leonard at Salon sums it up much better than I ever could (excerpt below):

For true beer-lovers across the world, Budweiser is a joke. It's embarrassing. Since when does America mean watered down pablum, forced down the throats of an unthinking populace by sheer power of mass marketing muscle? Since when does America stand for homogenized, lowest-common denominator swill? Michelob? Busch? These are not the names of American patriots -- these are signposts of the triumph of a particular strain of capitalism in which true identity and taste are sacrificed in the service of gaining greater market share.

If we're looking for real American icons that represent the grandest traditions of our founding fathers, who threw off foreign rule so they could stand independent and seek their own destiny, we have to search elsewhere than in the realm of giant conglomerates with humongous Super Bowl advertising budgets. I'm talking homebrewers, microbreweries, and those brave, privately-owned breweries that have yet to sell out to the false dream of "going public" -- and all the betrayal of brewer freedom that such slavery to the market implies.

Well said!

The Obnoxious Factor

Dan Connolly is completely correct in his latest blog entry (and so far, his readers agree); for the past four years, the Red Sox have not only had more on-field success than the NYY, but their fans that infest Camden Yards nine times per season have definitely surpassed New York fans in obnoxious behavior. It's almost pleasant to go to an O's-Yanks game these days, if only because it ensures than no critical mass of Boston fans will be at the ballpark. How times have changed...

War Machine

I don't recall how I made my way to this link, but this gargantuan graphic of the 2008 United States budget is...interesting, in a maddening kind of way. Yes, we pay 67% of our discretionary budget (non-entitlement programs such as SS, Medicare, et cetera, which are funded separately) on military and national security. That's over $700 Billion, out of $1.1 trillion. And what do we have to show for it? World peace and prosperity? Not so much. Economic dominance? Seemingly slipping away; we were just passed by China as the #2 exporter (in case you're curious, #1 is a country of 82 million people that sits in the middle of Europe, has a high standard of living, and makes some nice cars too).

Do any of the three (OK, two) presidential candidates even talk about military expenditures? No, not really. Unless it's about an increase in said expenditures, perhaps. Nobody wants to sound like they're soft on the bad guys. Plus, they probably suspect that the big military contractors will do their best to scuttle any campaign that even thinks about substantially reducing the Pentagon's budget, and they're probably right. Remember how quickly Howard Dean was shouted down four years ago when he had the temerity to suggest that we wouldn't necessarily always have the world's biggest military? As if the third-largest country in the world has the God-given right to the biggest military force on the planet.

While plenty of things are broken in this country, things that tax money could really go a long way toward fixing, the military-industrial complex will continue to devour the lion's share of the budget, until someone residing in the White House has the courage (and congressional majority) to start a draw down. I hope that person comes along soon, but I'm not optimistic. I don't think it's impossible; dust off Eisenhower's farewell address, tell the people where the money would go instead (health care, infrastructure, tax cuts), then sit back and watch the proponents of the war machine as they attempt to defend sinking almost 70% of income taxes into weapons and troops. But whoever decides to tackle it must realize that it's a signature issue that will dominate their administration's agenda. It's four-year fight worth having though, the sooner the better.

Ethanol, Dumb Government, and Corn Syrup

Government is usually faulted for moving too slowly, taking too long to catch up to the will of its citizens. The mandated ethanol production targets are an example of government moving too quickly, before the science of ethanol - as it related to global warming - was really understood. Now that it is better understood, this is a giant screw-up that has more serious ramifications than just massive give-aways to industrial agriculture. The problem is leaking into our food supply, and does anyone really expect the feds to move quickly (or to move at all) to correct their error, especially in an election year?

[A food/health aside: The farmer quoted in the Post article argues that food costs as a proportion of the average household budget is much less than it used to be. That's true, but that's because so much of the food Americans eat is processed food which is the end result of the industrialization of agriculture; back in the 1950's, food cost more because it was real food. Now so much of what we eat and drink contains some kind of corn-based chemical concoction that's cheaper than the real food alternative. As long as we continue to ramp up corn-based ethanol production, those processed food-like items are bound to get more expensive. So maybe this ethanol thing isn't all bad, if it means that real food becomes more of a part of the national diet once again?]

Here's another food prices / ethanol article on the front page of today's Sun.

Rethinking City Streets

New York City's congestion pricing traffic/infrastructure plan was shot down by Albany the other day. No surprise there, since there's a long history of acrimony between the State and the City. But there was barely any support for London's congestion pricing plan before it was implemented, and now most Londoners seem to dig it.

This New York Times article from earlier this week presents various re-imaginings of city streets, and is worth a read if you live in a city (who lives in a city and doesn't have urban-planning impulses occasionally?) or just find this kind of thing interesting. My favorite idea is probably the woonerf, although I'll be honest, I'm not sure if it's because I like the concept or because it sounds like it should be the name of an IKEA sofa. The soy-made packs of smart-as-a-horse cars are also...intriguing. Not so crazy about urban acupuncture; "the alpha mode is the shoe"? What does that even mean? Do quotes like that really help bring in the grant money?!?

Campaigning for Israeli Votes

Yesterday, at a United Jewish Communities debate in D.C., here's what representatives from the McCain and Clinton campaigns had to say:

Lawrence Eagleburger (remember him?) claimed that his candidate "will not talk with the Syrians, will not talk with the Iranians, will not talk with Hamas and Hezbollah. . . . He isn't going to push the Israelis." Fantastic! Another president who doesn't do diplomacy. Bush's third term indeed.

Ann Lewis, from the Clinton campaign, declared that "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties." Silly me, I thought this was a campaign for the presidency of the U.S.! Apparently the White House should merely act as a rubber stamp for Israel's government.

As race, ethnicity and religion are dragged to the forefront of this campaign, it's going to get really ugly (rather, uglier), really quickly. I find the idea somewhat ridiculous that one must agree one-hundred percent with the political and even religious views of one's pastor. Not much room for free-thinking in U.S. politics. Not anymore.

The Ghost of Steve Blake

Another season, another NIT appearance for the mighty Terrapins of Maryland. Any residual goodwill from the 2002 title has dissipated, so what now? There are all sorts of prescriptions being tossed around online and in the papers: Fire Gary. Gary needs to recruit better. Vasquez shouldn't be playing the point. What's wrong with Gist? The freshmen should have played more, because now next year's frontcourt will be awful.

A bit of truth to all of those. But I think [disclaimer: I have never played organzied basketball, coached organzied basketball, or been to a single Final Four as a player, coach, or spectator] that it begins and ends with the PG position. Since Steve Blake went on to the NBA, Maryland's point guard play has been erratic at best, and often just plain awful. John Gilchrist would rather score - or pout - than pass the ball. D.J. Strawberry was never a point guard but was forced into the position due to some questionable recruiting and didn't do so well (although he tried!). And Mr. Vasquez perfers to turn the ball over by either attempting impossible passes or by dribbling around in the lane until the ball is stolen.

Is there talent on this team? Absolutely. Although it's always interesting to hear Gary's teams described as so athletic when their talent is discussed. When's the last time that Gary's teams were described as smart? Maybe...the early years of the 21st century? Was that because Lonny "Six-Gun" Baxter was any brighter than James "1st Half" Gist? Certainly not. But he seemed to be, out on the court, because Blake wouldn't pass him the ball if he was at a spot on the court where he couldn't make a good play. That's a quality PG. Everyone else on the court looks smarter. Sure, it helps to have a backcourt partner like Juan Dixon. But this team proved down in Chapel Hill months ago that the ability is there, and that it just needs to be tapped consistently.

I know the origin of the word "fan", so I understand why people are calling for Gary's head. But logically, what are the odds that Debbie Yow is going to strike gold and find a coach that will do what Gary has already done? Statistically speaking, it's unlikely. There aren't too many coaches out there that been to even a single Final Four. That being said, I don't think he has a free pass for much longer. For instance, I can't see him holding onto his job if this year's NIT appearance is followed by two more years of the same. Hell, he might only have one more year - the big-money boosters at an ACC school aren't much for patience.

So what will Gary do? Move Vasquez to the shooting guard position, for starters. This puts him back in his natural position (he is a decent scorer), takes the ball out of his slippery hands, and moves Hayes to the bench (Eric doesn't look like an ACC starter to me, not after this season). Then, find a real pass-first PG. Maybe it's Adrian Bowie. Maybe it's the 2008 JuCo PG transfer with the awesome name, Bobby Maze. There's talent on this team; all it needs is someone with the ball in his hands who can help it to reach its potential.

House Dems Locate Their Spines

Better late than never, right?

2008 Rock & Roll HOF Induction

I'm not one for award shows, but I am a fan of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame show because it's so unlike the Oscars or the Grammys. For one, the audience is full of the most random collection of celebrities and music executives - this year there was Meg Ryan, Tom Hanks, some SNL cast members, and a random supermodel or two. The performances are also somewhat rough but come off as really genuine, maybe due to the relatively small venue at the Waldorf in NYC, as opposed to the cavernous amphitheaters that contain the bigger awards shows.

But the best part is the unscripted nature of the whole production. You never know what the inductees, or inductors (?) are going to say. And they can say pretty much whatever they want, for as long as they want. We recorded the show on Monday night and watched it last night; it was a good thing that it was recorded because we could zip through some of the inductees that we didn't know or care about and just get to the main acts (Leonard Cohen, Madonna, Mellencamp), because otherwise we would have been sitting there watching for four hours. On MHD they show the whole thing, edited only for bad words, without commercials, including stage change-overs and random backstage footage ("backstage" for some reason consisting of a kitchen/walk-in freezer area of the hotel). I think they edit it down to 2-hours, with ads, when they re-broadcast it on VH1 in a few weeks.

So what about all those crazy speeches and introductions? First of all, you kind of wonder how they come up with some pairings. Back in 2003 Gwen Stefani inducted the Police, and Elton John inducted Elvis Costello. Not the most natural pairings, if you ask me, but kinda fun nonetheless. This year Mr. Cohen was treated to a rambling, disjointed, when-will-it-end monologue by...Lou Reed? Sure, why not. Lou's odd introduction was thrown into even sharper relief by Cohen's brief, funny, touching acceptance speech.

Next up was Justin Timberlake to induct Madonna, a pairing that made a bit more sense to us. Justin started strong, but all the innuendo and lame jokes, not to mention his attempts to work in as many Madonna song titles as possible, became somewhat painful to listen to after a few minutes. Not terrible enough to wonder if Lou was still available, but still not good. Madonna herself had a solid and sincere acceptance speech prepared, nothing controversial or particularly noteworthy. But then...she didn't perform! Huh? Instead fellow Michigan native Iggy Pop performed in her stead (at her request?!?), "treating" the audience to two Madonna covers, the first which I didn't even recognize and the second an awful version of Ray of Light. Ugh.

Billy Joel inducted John Mellencamp, and while he started slow, he really delivered the most entertaining speech of the whole night. The role of sardonic and bitter aging rock/pop musician suits him quite well, plus he was very funny. I especially enjoyed his impression of Randy Newman. Mellencamp's speech was a bit rambling but solid, he seemed almost weary though at the podium. Fortunately, he had plenty of energy once he got on stage to perform three of his hits, although none of the three was Jack and Diane; what's up with that?

The big finale number, in which all inductees perform together, was just OK. They covered a song by the newly-inducted Dave Clark Five, and while Madonna didn't make it on stage, Iggy Pop didn't either, which was fine with us. So it ended up being John "Don't Call Me Cougar!!!" Mellencamp and his band, joined by John Fogerty, Joan Jett (told you this show was weird), plus Billy Joel looking clueless on keyboards - I wonder if anyone remembered to tell the old guy what song they were playing, or at least what key they were in.

Kinetic Link, Daylight Savings

After participating in our first Kinetic Sculpture Race last year (as volunteers), we were determined to enter this year's race as "competitors". Not gonna happen; we slacked off big-time. Aside from coming up with a few good ideas, we gathered no materials and didn't draw up any plans. Well, there's always 2009. Meanwhile, these kinetic sculptures are in a class of their own.

Meanwhile, what's with this extended daylight savings time, anyway? It probably increases electricity consumption, but do other health and safety-related benefits outweigh that factor?

Disaster In Garyland

Tough to win a game in which you're up by 20 points in the second half, but this team finds a way! I've always defended Gary, because more often than not he finds a way to turn it around. But there is a lot of talent on this team, and I just don't see how a good coach allows the debacle of last night's loss. Not to mention the fact that so often since 2002, his teams have needed to turn it around almost every year, just to have a shot at the NCAA tournament. Why is that the case?

That being said, it's hard to imagine a scenario under which Gary is involuntarily removed from his position in College Park. So something's gotta give.

Lego Batman!

The people that write Wired's game blog got a look at the upcoming game, and it looks awesome. Much more potential, IMO, than the also-forthcoming Lego Indiana Jones. And it's welcome news that the designers have fixed the sole annoying feature of Lego Star Wars (a game that Jenny and I both enjoy immensely), the stupid camera limitation for two players, which forces one player to temporarily drop out of the game for trickier puzzles and jumps.

Plus there's the option to play as the villains, which is always cool.

Here's the game trailer.

Something to Complain About

Seriously, is this really a big deal? We're talking about SNL here. Tina Fey's Weekend Update piece on Hillary notwithstanding, the show doesn't usually have much of a political agenda - they simply unload on the political figures that will get them the most laughs. Some of these critics need to lighten up.

Mean Frog, Good Band Name?

Maybe I've been playing too much Rock Band, because the first thing I thought when I read this article about a giant frog fossil found in Madagascar, was that Beelzebufo, and even its English translation devil frog, would be great band names. As for the frog itself? Ten pounds, and sixteen inches tall - wow.

The Police Confiscate Rock Band

Today's release of Truth Hits Everbody (an early Police single from Outlandos), brings the total number of Police songs available on Rock Band to five. Awesome. Next month, when Message In A Bottle is available for download, that number will be six, more than any other act in the game! (Metallica's count by the end of March will be five). And the Police songs so far - including one of my favorites, Synchronicity II, are of varying degrees of difficulty, which is nice.

I'm also going to have to take issue with some of the "Tier" difficulty rankings, according to this Wikipedia page. I'm not sure what the source is, but some of these seem way off to me. The Boston song that's included in the game is easier on guitar and bass than Tier 8 (out of 9), while the bass line for the Beastie Boys' Sabotage is really tough - no way it's a Tier 3. Other rankings seem entirely appropriate though; Enter Sandman and Highway Star are both brutal.

Points of Emphasis

In advance of the Terps' meeting with the Team from Durham on Wednesday, I thought that it would be appropriate to go to the rule book (courtesy of Grant Wahl's online column for Sports Illustrated):

"Acting As If Charged: The unethical practice of a defensive player or a screener acting as though he has been charged by an opponent, when in fact he has not been, is having an extremely undesirable effect upon the game. Without a doubt the practice is detrimental to the best interests of basketball. Those who 'put on these acts' must be penalized. The 'actor' wants to create the false impression that he has been fouled in the charging-guarding situation or while he is screening when in either case incidental contact has ensued. The acting guard or screener falls to the floor as though he were knocked there by the force of a charge. By his actions he indicates his opponent should be charged with a foul. He appeals to the official, either vocally or with a gesture. He attempts to get the sympathy of the spectators. Such conduct unfairly burdens the official. It incites the spectators. These acts tend to make a farce of the game and often are unsportsmanlike."

"Coaches must not allow players to make believe they have been fouled. The fact that contact occurred does not necessarily mean there has been a foul. When contact occurs, the official must decide whether it has been incidental or whether a foul has been committed. In making his decision he certainly cannot permit his judgment to be affected by an 'act.' In fact the official must completely ignore the acting unless it becomes unsportsmanlike or it tends to make a farce of the game. If the guard or screener persists in putting on the act, and if in the opinion of the official it is making a travesty of the game, the player should be charged with a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct."

This is an actual "point of emphasis" for officials, from the college basketball rulebook. The rulebook for the 1968-1969 season. I suppose it really is true that the more things change, the more they stay the same!

O's Pull Off a Decent Trade

In trading Erik Bedard, Baltimore actually gets real value back in return, and according to the "experts" pulled off a great trade. Bedard wasn't going to sign a new contract with the Orioles, and they get a nice young outfielder in Adam Jones, a serviceable lefty reliever in George Sherrill, a pitching prospect who's on the cusp of top-100 prospect lists (Chris Tillman), and a couple more big young pitchers with some upside (lefty Tony Butler is 6'7", Kameron Mickolio is 6'9"). Now all they need to do is trade Brian Roberts to the Cubs for a few more pitchers, and resist the urge to start adding free agents in '09 (bad Peter! No!). This team won't be ready to compete for anything until 2010 at the earliest, but after ten straight losing seasons, what's two or three more?

Who I'm Voting For on Tuesday

This year Maryland will hold a primary that actually matters! While my preferred candidate, John Edwards, is no longer in the running, there's plenty to like about both of the remaining candidates. [My quick summation of the Edwards campaign; loved his message about corporate influence in D.C., too bad he (A) didn't know how to talk about it, and (B) not enough people care, or view it as a big issue.]

Despite the awesome speechifying prowess of Mr. Obama, I'm going to have to cast my vote for Hillary come Tuesday evening. Why? Three reasons, in order of importance to me; I'll try to keep them short.

1. Health Care: In case you missed my sixteen-part series prompted by the movie SiCKO, this is a pet issue of mine. Hillary's plan of mandatory coverage moves us closer than Obama's plan to universal single-payer coverage - albeit incrementally closer.
2. Partisanship: If anything, we need more fights in D.C., not fewer. The current Pelosi-Reid Congress rolls over on war/security matters all the time - if that's what bi-partisanship or post-partisanship look like, then no thanks. I have no desire to see Dems working together on security issues with a party that constantly questions the patriotism of any politician or citizen who opposes war, torture, or spying on Americans. Enough is enough. The president sets the tone for the party, and Hillary is more of a fighter.
   
3. After everything she had to deal with four her previous eight years in the White House, thanks to Bill, Ken Starr, and the VRWC, she still wants to be president? What can I say, I'm impressed by that.
   

With all that having been said, I'd be perfectly fine with Barack as our next president. Two very solid choices; that's awfully nice, for a change.